DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[3rdnlng]

9 hours ago, GG said:

This story popped up in my news feed earlier today, and I didn't notice until later tonight because of the ominous headline.  I read it, and laughed at the progression:

 

 

 

 

Sounds pretty bad

 

 

But, then - Oh, never mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, GG said:

Mueller’s team reportedly did not believe Manafort when he told them that Trump did not know that Trump Tower meeting between his top campaign staff and Russian operatives.

Mark Sumner, the author needs to learn how to write complete sentences.

[Tiberius]

12 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Damn!

What's strange is, that even though they committed a crime to win the election, and at least Cohen will go to jail for it, this is nothing at all compared to the Russian part of all this. 

 

The only thing not making this technically treason is that we are not at war. But the president basically is conducted the foreign policy of the United States as a Trump enterprise profit making scheme. 

 

[Tiberius]

As to the campaign finance violation: 

 

“While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs” with Trump. “In the process,” they wrote, “Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the Election.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/robert-muellers-memos-reveal-lies-cohen-and-manafort/577675/

 

cant help but think Conservatives will attack the law here and try and get the court to gut all campaign finance reform, anti-bribery laws etc. 

[Tiberius]

It also looks like there is a very serious charge of witness tampering that is going to be placed on the table against Trump. 

 

The list of foul deeds and criminal activity just grows by the day 

[TH3]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It also looks like there is a very serious charge of witness tampering that is going to be placed on the table against Trump. 

 

The list of foul deeds and criminal activity just grows by the day 

You need a drawer full of no name idiots that tweet ....then  you can cut and paste in your posts to add depth and relevance.....just like Bman and DR....this simple posting needs SIZZLE,,,?!

Edited December 8, 2018 by TH3

[B-Man]

JOURNALISM:

 

 

 

 

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

It also looks like there is a very serious charge of witness tampering that is going to be placed on the table against Trump. 

 

The list of foul deeds and criminal activity just grows by the day 

[Nanker]

Russian Dressing on his salad - check

No Czars appointed yet - check

Once overheard saying, "nyet"  - check (later found out that he actually said, "not yet." Doesn't matter.

Likes the color red - check

Knows some Russians - check

Friends of his know some Russians and actually spoke to them - check

Sarah Palin could see Russia from her house - check

Can identify Russia on a map - check

COLLUSION! CORRUPTION! CONSPIRACY!

IMPEACH!

Check please!

[Deranged Rhino]

https://mobile.twitter.com/NolteNC/status/1071424312802992129

[Deranged Rhino]

 

(wish he had written SHEEPLE! for Tom's benefit)

 

[Doc]

So IOW...nothing.

[Kemp]

21 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Sharing information is now condescending? Come on, Kemp. It's a tough board and sometimes talking plain is the only way to make the point. You've been lied to about this. I can prove that, and have for going on two years down here. That doesn't make you less of a person or thinker than me, it just means I was in the right place at the right time to catch the lie early. 

 

There's plenty of time for you to adjust your opinions in light of the new information shared. How you choose to react to new information though is up to you. You can either plug your ears and pretend it doesn't exist or is all "conspiracy", or you can honestly engage in the material to see what stands up and what falls short. 

 

All I've ever preached down here is for people to become their own experts. Not to "believe me" or "I'm right, you're wrong". We're all in this together, even if millions of dollars have been spent trying to convince you otherwise. 

 

The "new information" is that Trump and Cohen committed a campaign finance illegality. 

 

How that information clears Trump, as he says is, not very logical.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

The "new information" is that Trump and Cohen committed a campaign finance illegality. 

 

How that information clears Trump, as he says is, not very logical.

 

We were talking Trump Tower - and you didn't engage after bringing it up. 

 

The campaign finance issue has been known for over a year now. It's not new. It's also not a crime punishable by anything more than a fine. It's a far cry from Russian collusion/conspiracy/treason.

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

We were talking Trump Tower - and you didn't engage after bringing it up. 

 

The campaign finance issue has been known for over a year now. It's not new. It's also not a crime punishable by anything more than a fine. It's a far cry from Russian collusion/conspiracy/treason.

The litmus test on whether or not it is a violation is if Trump would have paid them off if he wasn't running for office. If you could say that he would have, then there was no violation.

[Kemp]

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

We were talking Trump Tower - and you didn't engage after bringing it up. 

 

The campaign finance issue has been known for over a year now. It's not new. It's also not a crime punishable by anything more than a fine. It's a far cry from Russian collusion/conspiracy/treason.

 

What's new is Cohen stating he was instructed by Trump. Has that been presented before and I missed it?

 

Another question I posed to you that I believe you did not answer was when I asked you your thoughts as to why Trump called on a Russian spy at his press conference, which elicited Trumps statement on getting rid of sanctions against Russia. Apologies in advance if I missed it.

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

What's new is Cohen stating he was instructed by Trump. Has that been presented before and I missed it?

 

Yes. Not new. 

 

9 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Another question I posed to you that I believe you did not answer was when I asked you your thoughts as to why Trump called on a Russian spy at his press conference, which elicited Trumps statement on getting rid of sanctions against Russia. Apologies in advance if I missed it.

 

It's nonsense. Not illegal. Not proof of collusion. Not proof of conspiracy. 

 

 

[Kemp]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yes. Not new. 

 

 

It's nonsense. Not illegal. Not proof of collusion. Not proof of conspiracy. 

 

 

 

You're giving me opinions of people not involved in the investigation. I can do the same with opposite opinions, so I'm not sure of your point.

 

Opinions of outsiders are worth nothing no matter their opinion.

 

What intrigues me a bit is you sometimes present yourself as an insider or connected to someone within the investigation. 

 

Any opinion on the Russian spy at Trump's press conference, yet?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

You're giving me opinions of people not involved in the investigation. I can do the same with opposite opinions, so I'm not sure of your point.

 

Opinions of outsiders are worth nothing no matter their opinion.

 

I'm not saying they're inside the investigation, I'm sharing opinion based in fact. Facts previously presented in the 300+ pages of this thread. 

 

2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

What intrigues me a bit is you sometimes present yourself as an insider or connected to someone within the investigation. 

 

 

I don't present myself as such. I've been very open with where my information comes from for two years now. If you read my work, you'll see. 

 

And if you look, you'll see the information I've been laying out for months and months have been proven much more accurate than not, and much more accurate than 90% of the MSM coverage on this topic. Why does my information end up being better? Because I'm following evidence, not opinion and spin. The evidence on this issue is clear, and you keep avoiding discussing it. 

 

You've not mentioned one thing about the information shared above on your Trump Tower speculations. Do you not see how it's more of a set up than anything else now? Or are you still turning a blind eye to it?

 

5 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Any opinion on the Russian spy at Trump's press conference, yet?

 

I answered that above. It's a nonsense talking point meant to distract you.

 

[TH3]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

(wish he had written SHEEPLE! for Tom's benefit)

 

Cutting and pasting tweets from no names who agree with you makes you look weak and desparate...

5 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

You're giving me opinions of people not involved in the investigation. I can do the same with opposite opinions, so I'm not sure of your point.

 

Opinions of outsiders are worth nothing no matter their opinion.

 

What intrigues me a bit is you sometimes present yourself as an insider or connected to someone within the investigation. 

 

Any opinion on the Russian spy at Trump's press conference, yet?

Too busy harvesting crap from his “feed”

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, TH3 said:

Cutting and pasting tweets from no names who agree with you makes you look weak and desparate...

 

No. Posts like yours - devoid of fact, information, or anything of substance - makes you look exactly like the person you are: weak, desperate, and uninformed. 

 

I've provided hundreds of pages of primary source evidence over the two years of this work. 

 

You're terrible at this whole "thinking for yourself" thing. 

[Kemp]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm not saying they're inside the investigation, I'm sharing opinion based in fact. Facts previously presented in the 300+ pages of this thread. 

 

 

I don't present myself as such. I've been very open with where my information comes from for two years now. If you read my work, you'll see. 

 

And if you look, you'll see the information I've been laying out for months and months have been proven much more accurate than not, and much more accurate than 90% of the MSM coverage on this topic. Why does my information end up being better? Because I'm following evidence, not opinion and spin. The evidence on this issue is clear, and you keep avoiding discussing it. 

 

You've not mentioned one thing about the information shared above on your Trump Tower speculations. Do you not see how it's more of a set up than anything else now? Or are you still turning a blind eye to it?

 

 

I answered that above. It's a nonsense talking point meant to distract you.

 

 

I think I understand your narrative. If something is a potential problem for you to discuss, you go into a huff and claim it a distraction.

 

On the Trump Tower question, do you believe it was about adoption despite what the emails said and no I am not going to go through hundreds of pages of your "evidence" to get your answer.

 

Who ran the setup, by the way, and why, and what is the evidence of the setup?

Edited December 8, 2018 by Kemp

[Nanker]

11 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

You're giving me opinions of people not involved in the investigation. I can do the same with opposite opinions, so I'm not sure of your point.

 

Opinions of outsiders are worth nothing no matter their opinion.

 

What intrigues me a bit is you sometimes present yourself as an insider or connected to someone within the investigation. 

 

Any opinion on the Russian spy at Trump's press conference, yet?

I've got one. What the ***** was a Russian spy doing at a President of the United States, Donald J. Trump's press conference? 

[Kemp]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

I've got one. What the ***** was a Russian spy doing at a President of the United States, Donald J. Trump's press conference? 

 

And why did Trump call on her?

[Nanker]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

I think I understand your narrative. If something is a potential problem for you to discuss, you go into a huff and claim it a distraction.

 

On the Trump Tower question, do you believe it was about adoption despite the emails said and no I am not going to go through hundreds of pages of your "evidence" to get your answer.

 

Who ran the setup, by the way, and why, and what is the evidence of the setup?

You really should read more. Greggy's laid that out in spades. A better and yet unanswered question is how and why did the Russian Lawyer (spy actually) get clearance to go to that Trump Tower meeting. Who arranged it? Who signed off on it? Who was the Russian interpreter present at that meeting, and who did he work for previously?

 

All that and a ton more has already been revealed. It's right here if you want to look for it. 

Just now, Kemp said:

 

And why did Trump call on her?

She had nice tatas maybe. Did he know she was a spy?

[Kemp]

Just now, Nanker said:

You really should read more. Greggy's laid that out in spades. A better and yet unanswered question is how and why did the Russian Lawyer (spy actually) get clearance to go to that Trump Tower meeting. Who arranged it? Who signed off on it? Who was the Russian interpreter present at that meeting, and who did he work for previously?

 

All that and a ton more has already been revealed. It's right here if you want to look for it. 

 

If it's so simple a few sentences would answer it.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Nanker said:

You really should read more. Greggy's laid that out in spades. A better and yet unanswered question is how and why did the Russian Lawyer (spy actually) get clearance to go to that Trump Tower meeting. Who arranged it? Who signed off on it? Who was the Russian interpreter present at that meeting, and who did he work for previously?

 

All that and a ton more has already been revealed. It's right here if you want to look for it. 

She had nice tatas maybe. Did he know she was a spy?

 

We don't know the answer to that. That's kind of the point. I imagine we will get an answer at some point.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Clinton got impeached for lying about a BJ in the oval office while the original purpose of the special counsel was to investigate Whitewater.

 

When the House impeaches Trump for I'm guessing both obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations before he's cleared in the Senate....will his approval rating go up .2% or .6%?

[Deranged Rhino]

22 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

I think I understand your narrative. If something is a potential problem for you to discuss, you go into a huff and claim it a distraction.

 

Incorrect. 

22 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

On the Trump Tower question, do you believe it was about adoption despite what the emails said and no I am not going to go through hundreds of pages of your "evidence" to get your answer.

 

Who ran the setup, by the way, and why, and what is the evidence of the setup?

 

It helps to read what was written. I laid it out very clearly - and you ignored it (who is the one who runs from information that goes contrary to their narrative again?). 

On 12/7/2018 at 10:15 AM, Kemp said:

The meeting in Trump Tower is proof of attempted collusion unless you believe that the meeting was about adoption despite what has already been revealed through emails.
 

 

On 12/7/2018 at 10:37 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I've broken this down at length before, so forgive me. But this is incorrect. 

 

It's not attempted collusion to take a meeting in order to get dirt on your political opponent. That happens every day on national campaigns and only crosses the collusion line if you're knowingly trafficking in illegally acquired material from a known foreign agent. So, taking the meeting is evidence of nothing and was in no way illegal. Shady? Sure. But that's big-boy politics, not espionage. 

 

But there's more to the Trump Tower meeting than it first appears. As proven now by congressional testimony from Glenn Simpson as well as hundreds of pages of additional evidence, everyone in that Trump Tower meeting not connected to the Trump campaign had direct connections not to Russia but to HRC's campaign and 44's administration. Here's how: 

 

1. The attorney who ran the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, did not have a VISA to come into the country. She was granted one at the 11th hour by the State Department just so she could make the meeting.

 

2. Prior to the meeting and immediately after, NV met with Glenn Simpson - owner of Fusion GPS. Simpson claimed he does not speak Russian and she doesn't speak English, yet they met immediately before and after this meeting took place. 

 

3. Goldstone who set the meeting has direct ties to Richard Dearlove of MI6 and British intelligence. Dearlove has direct connections to Alexander Downer, Halper, Brennan, and the Clinton machine. 

 

4. The translator used for the meeting worked for Meridian and was Clinton's personal translator while at the State Department. 

 

In summation - the only reason the meeting happened at all was because of the VISA approved by John Kerry's State Department at the 11th hour, and only came together after coordination between Fusion GPS, British Intelligence, and Paul Manafort (again, who's likely a plant). The meeting took place at the exact time we now know the FBI and CIA were working to insert undercover informants into Team Trump's orbit specifically to entrap them and justify FISAs. 

 

There's much more evidence this meeting was a set up than there is of any crimes being committed by Don Jr.

 

 

Care to respond? Or are you going to dodge the issue again?

18 minutes ago, Kemp said:

We don't know the answer to that. That's kind of the point. I imagine we will get an answer at some point.

 

We do know the answer. The evidence is in open source. 

 

But if you wait for an authority to tell what to think about a subject, you're always going to be behind the curve.

9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Clinton got impeached for lying about a BJ in the oval office while the original purpose of the special counsel was to investigate Whitewater.

 

When the House impeaches Trump for I'm guessing both obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations before he's cleared in the Senate....will his approval rating go up .2% or .6%?

 

The drift of the SCO is to be expected and isn't the point I am making. 

 

The point is this is evidence of the manipulation of the media and this narrative by the USIC and others. It should be illuminating to all those who have paid attention for the past two years. From day one of his administration the calls have been endless and breathless from the media that Trump committed treason. The election was illegally won with the help of Russia. 

 

This was a (dis)information campaign designed to propagandize the public into distrusting the newly elected president. It was run by the outgoing administration and the IC using the controlled media as their vehicle. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and should alarm anyone who isn't a partisan. 

[Nanker]

Thanks for re-re-restating the timeline of the bad actors, DR. 

If ANYONE wants to see the primary evidence related to the Trump Tower meeting issues that you (again, and again, and again) have laid out, they just need to look in this very thread. You've been extremely patient with the drive-bys who just don't want to believe that Trump and his campaign were set up like a bowling pin. 

 

Here's Trump's trial in brief:

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Kemp]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. 

 

It helps to read what was written. I laid it out very clearly - and you ignored it (who is the one who runs from information that goes contrary to their narrative again?). 

 

 

Care to respond? Or are you going to dodge the issue again?

 

We do know the answer. The evidence is in open source. 

 

But if you wait for an authority to tell what to think about a subject, you're always going to be behind the curve.

 

The drift of the SCO is to be expected and isn't the point I am making. 

 

The point is this is evidence of the manipulation of the media and this narrative by the USIC and others. It should be illuminating to all those who have paid attention for the past two years. From day one of his administration the calls have been endless and breathless from the media that Trump committed treason. The election was illegally won with the help of Russia. 

 

This was a (dis)information campaign designed to propagandize the public into distrusting the newly elected president. It was run by the outgoing administration and the IC using the controlled media as their vehicle. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and should alarm anyone who isn't a partisan. 

 

1. I already presented you with government proof that campaign finance violation is a crime despite what you maintain. Any retort?

 

2. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-russians-legal-analysis-20170711-story.html

 

This disputes your primary presumption as to whether it is legal to get information from a foreign government in order to win an election. There are numerous other examples of lawyers saying the same exact thing.

 

3.  So, who framed Trump in regards to the Trump Tower meeting? Since you maintain the tower meeting was legal, please explain how you frame someone when no crime was committed.

 

4. Why did the Trump team lie about the purpose of the meeting if it was legal?

 

5. How did multiple members of Trump's associates know of the Wikileaks info before it was released? Giuliani, Stone and Corsi all talked about it before it was general knowledge.

 

6. Why did the abolition of sanctions come from a Russian spy at a Trump press conference?

 

7. Trump has changed his reasons for firing Comey. Why? Which version is true?

 

8. Why do you think Trump refused to release his taxes?

 

9. Why has Trump changed his story as to whether he knew Putin before and after the election?

 

10. Why does Trump claim he never had business dealings with Russia when his own son says the opposite?

 

11. Why do you believe Trump is the only person who has seen the Intel on the murder of Khashoggi who doesn't believe MBS did it?

 

12. Why do you believe Trump has failed to obey the Emoluments clause?

 

13. Why are countries where he has properties treated differently than countries that don't  have his properties?

 

14. Why did every American bank refuse to do business with Trump?

 

15. Why did he end up borrowing from Deutsche bank, now known primarily for money laundering Russian assets?

 

16. Why during the housing collapse was Trump able to sell a property he paid 41 million for and resell it for 95 million in cash? Was the Russian billionaire that stupid or was it money laundering?

 

There's lots more, but you already know that.

 

But the Rhino is convinced all of this is bull or a smokescreen. No Russian connections here.

 

Yeah, you're the clued in to the truth guy.

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

I take it "kemp" is another one I should put on ignore? 

[Deranged Rhino]

Comey's transcript is out. 

 

 

 This tweet looks even more slimy now that the transcript is out. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

52 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

1. I already presented you with government proof that campaign finance violation is a crime despite what you maintain. Any retort?

 

2. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-russians-legal-analysis-20170711-story.html

 

This disputes your primary presumption as to whether it is legal to get information from a foreign government in order to win an election. There are numerous other examples of lawyers saying the same exact thing.

 

So you're not going to address the points raised... shocking! 

 

But I'll respond because unlike you I'm not afraid of facts:

 

1) It's not a criminal offense, which is what I said. It's a fine. Nothing more. 

 

2) The story is from 2017 and is filled with errors. They're incorrect and leading you astray. Get better sources.

 

53 minutes ago, Kemp said:

3.  So, who framed Trump in regards to the Trump Tower meeting? Since you maintain the tower meeting was legal, please explain how you frame someone when no crime was committed.

 

Read what I wrote. It's spelled out. NV - a known Russian intelligence asset - was granted a rare, emergency VISA by the Kerry State Department at the 11th hour to make the meeting despite being on "visa parole".

https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-veselnitskaya/how-did-russian-lawyer-veselnitskaya-get-into-u-s-for-trump-tower-meeting-idUSKBN1D62Q2

 

Now, if we're supposed to believe Trump Jr - who was not a government employee who had access to this sort of information - was supposed to know NV was a Russian intelligence asset,. isn't it fair to assume that the Kerry run State Department should have known that as well? Yet they granted her an emergency visa to make this meeting... isn't that at least curious if not dangerous? 

 

Then there's this: Prior to the meeting she met with Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS and then again immediately after. Simpson was in the middle of doing opposition research on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. Again, is that not problematic to the version of that meeting you're clinging to? Simpson was actively working to create dirt on a political opponent for Hillary Clinton. That was his mandate and job... but the fact that the whole meeting was only made possible because of the efforts made by 44's administration is to be ignored... why?

 

This wasn't a set up for a crime. This was a set up for political dirt they could spin in headlines and convince uninformed voters like yourself that something dirty happened when nothing out of sorts did. It was a trick. And it worked quite well.  

 

They accomplished all this with the assist of the State Department and British Intelligence agencies who were trying to back engineer legal justification for their illegal spying operation on US political candidates. 

 

Those are the facts. Those are undisputed. That is how the meeting came together and the connections all point to a set up. 

 

Do you disagree? If so, why? Show your work.

 

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

4. Why did the Trump team lie about the purpose of the meeting if it was legal?

 

Political optics. Same reason Clinton lied about "wiping her servers" with a cloth. It's what politicians do. It's not a sign of guilt or innocence. It's spin in the middle of a campaign (and then) a palace coup attempt.

 

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

5. How did multiple members of Trump's associates know of the Wikileaks info before it was released? Giuliani, Stone and Corsi all talked about it before it was general knowledge.

 

It was public knowledge the DNC got "hacked" in the summer of '16. It was public knowledge that Wikileaks would publish material such as stolen emails. This wasn't "an inside job" - half the world was talking about it at the time of those emails. INCLUDING ME ON THIS SITE.

 

You're failing to remember accurately the timeline of events. Because you're too busy waiting for "experts" to tell you what to think rather than thinking for yourself. All the evidence is there in open source for you to vet yourself. But you keep failing to do so, because you'd rather have your opinion reinforced than tested. 

 

That's the sign of intellectual laziness or awareness that you're backing a losing proposition. 

 

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

6. Why did the abolition of sanctions come from a Russian spy at a Trump press conference?

7. Trump has changed his reasons for firing Comey. Why? Which version is true?

8. Why do you think Trump refused to release his taxes?

9. Why has Trump changed his story as to whether he knew Putin before and after the election?

10. Why does Trump claim he never had business dealings with Russia when his own son says the opposite?

 

These have nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting - a subject you're still avoiding discussing. This is sliding the conversation because you can't discuss or refute the facts I'm presenting... And you wonder why people don't think you're being honest or worthy of reply down here? 

 

You can do better than this. 

 

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

11. Why do you believe Trump is the only person who has seen the Intel on the murder of Khashoggi who doesn't believe MBS did it?

 

This also has nothing to do with Russian collusion/conspiracy or the topic at hand. But it's nice to see you blindly swallowing Turkish and Iranian propaganda without questioning it. Both of those regimes treat their "journalists" nicely and humanely right? We should all strive to be more like Turkey and Iran.  

 

MBS/Khashoggi has everything to do with Brennan and Iran, nothing to do with Russia. Khashoggi was a spook, not a journalist. He was (likely) involved in the assassination attempt on MBS several months ago (along with Brennan) and his death was meant to send a message. 

 

That message was delivered. 

 

Keep parroting the talking points of the monsters of the world like Turkey and Iran and you'll keep on being lost in the wilderness. 

 

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

12. Why do you believe Trump has failed to obey the Emoluments clause?

13. Why are countries where he has properties treated differently than countries that don't  have his properties?

14. Why did every American bank refuse to do business with Trump?

 

 

Nothing to do with what we're discussing. There's no proof of any of the above, just rumor and innuendo. 

 

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

15. Why did he end up borrowing from Deutsche bank, now known primarily for money laundering Russian assets?

 

You mean the same bank that's the primary bank used by the Clinton Foundation (and many leftist donors?) 

 

It's funny you don't seem concerned by that. The amount of business Deutsche does with CF/CI dwarfs Trump's business with them... but details, right?

 

Facts are just annoying when you're trying to build a narrative, aren't they? 

 

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

But the Rhino is convinced all of this is bull or a smokescreen. No Russian connections here.

 

Yeah, you're the clued in to the truth guy.

 

You conflated over a dozen unrelated points all to avoid talking about what I laid out about Trump Tower. That's not being honest, Kemp. That's being an intellectual coward and failing to engage in material that runs contrary to your own preformed conclusions. 

 

Be better. You are capable of it, but it requires effort and thinking for yourself. 

[Deranged Rhino]

More on the Comey transcript - lots of *****ery in it (as expected). Comey comes off as a duplicitous, slimy turd (also as expected). 

 

 

 

From Solomon's piece (which is a must read): 

He didn’t seem to know that his own FBI was using No. 4 Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as a conduit to keep collecting intelligence from Christopher Steele after the British intel operative was fired by the bureau for leaking and lying. In fact, Comey didn’t seem to remember knowing that Steele had been terminated, according to sources in the room.

 

“His memory was so bad I feared he might not remember how to get out of the room after the interview,” one lawmaker quipped. Lamented another: “It was like he suddenly developed dementia or Alzheimer’s, after conveniently remembering enough facts to sell his book.”

 

 

(SNIP)

 

And Comey admitted much of the dossier remained uncorroborated more than six months later when he was fired by President Trump.

 

I won’t waste too much time harping on the enormity of this confession. Everyday Americans now know that the FISA court process is an honor system and that the FBI may only submit evidence it has verified to the judges.

 

Comey now has confirmed what Republican lawmakers like Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Rep. Mark Meadows(R-N.C.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have warned about for months – that the FBI used an unverified dossier, paid for by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party as political opposition research, to justify spying on the duly nominated GOP candidate for president just weeks before Election Day.

 

 

 

 

Comey has "no idea" who started the counterintelligence investigation: 

 

(BECAUSE THERE IS NO START DATE, IT WAS AN ONGOING ILLEGAL SPYING OPERATION and it was uncovered by Admiral Rogers in March/April '16)

 

 

And, this is very true: 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Whaaa? You mean Comey lied again? 

 

What a dumbass. He knew the transcript would come out and he still tried selling this. Maybe because he knows half the media is the tank for his cause and they'd let him get away with it. 

 

Watching him get bracelets will be a joy.

[DC Tom]

It all gives me the feeling there's going to be a mass shooting Wednesday...

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

What did Flynn do wrong? He worked for Obama and dared to question his strategy in terms of Iran and ISIS... then he was fired for wanting to be honest with the American public about the administrations' foreign policy. 

 

Then he joined Trump and became the number one threat. He was the first target, the main target, because he knows everything. 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Then he joined Trump and became the number one threat. He was the first target, the main target, because he knows everything. 

 

Then why didn't they kill him?

[Buffalo_Gal]

57 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Whaaa? You mean Comey lied again? 

 

What a dumbass. He knew the transcript would come out and he still tried selling this. Maybe because he knows half the media is the tank for his cause and they'd let him get away with it. 

 

Watching him get bracelets will be a joy.

Sounds like the Hillary Clinton, Lois Learner, Greg Grosman (I could list more) testifying tactic. The Obama Administration! The most transparent ever! /sarc

 

 

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Then why didn't they kill him?

I am gonna assume because he could defend himself and was  a tad too high profile? Now that he is a "felon" he's less armed, but could probably pull a MacGyver and kill his attacker with a shoestring. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal

[Deranged Rhino]

 

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Then why didn't they kill him?

 

Didn't they try? They publicly assassinated his character to make sure if he spoke, he wouldn't be believed.

 

A literal assassination of him would only make him a martyr once he joined the Trump camp.